Friday, September 30, 2016

Comments

Ralph CinqueJim, I have no idea.I can tell you that I think the guy was a little shorter than Ruby and a little stockier. And, he had longer hair in back. But, I have no idea who he was. But, it wouldn't surprise me if he was a Dallas cop. After all, they were very enraged about Oswald supposedly killing TIppit. I find it very strange the Leavelle claimed to have such a warm, friendly relationship with Oswald. He claimed to address him by his first name. He claimed to joke with him. Who jokes with a double murderer? So, was Leavelle trying too hard? To cover up what was really going on?

Epistemology is the study of the theory of knowledge, that is: What constitutes knowledge? What makes something a fact? What is the criterion for claiming that you know something. Not that you believe something; not that you accept something; not that you surmise something; but that you know it; that it is a bankable fact. Now, let's apply Epistemological theory to the claim that Jack Ruby shot Oswald. On what basis is that claimed to be a fact?First, there is the fact that many people believe he did. Millions.Well, Epistemology doesn't give a shit about that. Epistemology pisses on that. That means nothing to Epistemology. Not little, but nothing. Nada.Millions of people can be wrong. I'll say it again: millions of people can be wrong. There is the fact that Jack Ruby admitted doing it. But, did you ever listen to him? Did you, or did you not, notice how baffled and incoherent he sounded? He sounded dopey and confused as he mumbled, stumbled, tumbled around talking about it. And, he said that he had no memory of doing it. He said he remembered going to the garage, and the next thing he remembers is being piled upon by police. That's it. Nothing in-between. You can't just look at the abstraction of Ruby saying that he did it. You have to actually listen to him say it and assess his credibility in saying that he did it. And when I do the latter, I come away with a lot of misgivings. To me, Jack Ruby sounded very much like Sirhan Sirhan who said and still says that he has no memory of shooting Robert Kennedy.So, does the totality of what Jack Ruby said in claiming to have shot Oswald, including what he said and the manner in which he said it, make it an epistemological certainty that he did it? Of course not. Not by a long shot. People make false statements all the time. Do I have to point that out? People often lie. People are often mistaken without lying. And in Jack Ruby's case, there is grave concern about the state of his mind, because he did not sound clear and lucid. He never sounded clear and lucid. So, the Epistemology Judge says no when it comes to claiming knowledge from that. It doesn't begin to meet the threshold.What's left? There is the photographic evidence, which should be what cinches it. But, in this case: THERE IS NO IMAGE OF THE SHOOTER THAT PROVIDES ENOUGH VISUAL DATA, ENOUGH VISUAL INFORMATION. TO IDENTIFY HIM AS JACK RUBY. We simply don't see enough of him. For instance, you can't claim from looking at this that the shooter is Jack Ruby.

You know how fingerprint matching works. They compare different "points" in the fingerprint to corresponding points in the unknown fingerprint, and it takes a certain number of point-matches to declare that it's the same person who made both prints. How many matches exactly? That's often debated, but the more the better. And, you can't put a known image of Ruby up next to that guy and make enough point-matches to state, categorically, that he was Jack Ruby. You can't because it is too possible for someone to look that much like Jack Ruby without being Jack Ruby. Then, there is the mere fact that there is no image of the shooter's face. With as many cameras as there were in that garage, doesn't it seem like one of them would have captured his face?And don't even bring up those bull shit images from Backes. I'm talking about the guy above. And then there is the fact that Dallas Police made the unusual response of herding the shooter out of the area without stopping to cuff him first, and the very fact that the mob of men knew to do that is disturbing. We don't hear anyone shouting orders. So, how did they know that was the plan? Doesn't it seem likely that at least one of the cops would have taken out handcuffs and tried to cuff him? So, there is no photographic proof that the shooter was Jack Ruby, and the behavior of the police in sprinting him out of there, in mob-like fashion, only makes it more troubling. So, the bottom line is that, epistemologically speaking, there is no proof that that shooter was Jack Ruby.Now, if you want to believe he was Jack Ruby, you can, and I can't stop you. But, don't try to claim that you KNOW that he was Jack Ruby, because you can't possibly know that, and I won't let you get away with it. I won't. I'll call you on it every time. And, I'm sure Plato and Socrates are siding with me on this.

He didn't have Herculean arms like that. He didn't have ears like that. He didn't have hair like that. And, we have him claiming from his own lips that he had a "crewcut" at the time. Listen to him yourself:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PS9I5ZcDxI

Lovelady told Brooten repeatedly that he had a "crewcut" at the time. His wife laughed when he said it, but nevertheless, that's what he said. The image above did not surface until the late 1970s during the HSCA. Until then, there was never any discovery of it. And Lovelady, himself, denied that he was ever there. He denied that he ever saw Oswald at the PD, so obviously, that can't be him. Lovelady denied it to Joseph Ball in 1964, and he denied it again to Ken Brooten in 1976. So, that is just another phony image of Lovelady, one planted into a film to create the illusion that he was in the Squad room of the Homicide detectives when Oswald was brought in. It never happened. Lovelady never said that it happened. He denied that it happened. His chatty wife never said it happened. It is a total lie.

On the left below is a false image of Oswald, one supposedly taken in Russia. I believe and am quite sure that it is a composite photo, but in any case, it is definitely not authentically him, the Oswald of fame, and I'll explain why.

First, is that a mole on his neck? Because, the Oswald of fame didn't have one. It looks like a mole, and it appears in all the versions of that photo, including this one, which is a Warren Commission exhibit.

So, are we supposed to believe that Oswald had a mole which he had removed? But, no dermatologist would ever say that that is a dangerous looking mole. But note that, as I analyze the photo, I consider that to be the side of the other Oswald. So, maybe he really did have a mole there, and they just didn't notice it when they made the composite. But, let's go back to the collage.

There is a big difference in the noses. On the left, he has a lot bigger, wider hunk of nasal-tip cartilage there. On the right, his nasal tip looks smaller, narrower, and more refined. Keep in mind that the nasal cartilage keeps growing throughout life, and if we all lived to 150, many of us would wind up with noses like Jimmy Durante. But above, he was several years younger on the left. Notice also how wide the bridge of his nose is on the left; it is much wider than it is on the right. We know for a fact that Oswald had very symmetrical nostrils. But, the Oswald on the left doesn't. Look at him lightened.

Look how grossly asymmetrical that looks. And I am quite sure they added that shadow under his nose on his left side (right to us) in order to hide the asymmetry of his nostrils, which was the result of putting two half-images together. Next, compare the chins. On the left, he's got a big anvil-like chin. On the right, his chin is more pointed, and it also had a central crevice or dimple which we don't see on the left. As I said, it looks anvil-like. Now for the eyes: On the left, his eyebrow looks totally artificial. It's pencil-thin laterally, and medially, it looks like a thick, painted stripe.

That was certainly not Oswald's eyebrow, and I don't think it was anybody's. It looks fake, and it was fake.

Now let's compare the mouths.

On the left, if you look on the right side of it, you'll see that the line of his mouth is missing. It comes abruptly to an end. And notice the asymmetry of the mouth on the left. Mouths tend to be very symmetrical on everybody. Finally, look how stocky this guy looks.

Oswald was thin, even when he was in Russia.

Notice on the right that Oswald was parting his hair on the other side at that time. Look how thin his neck and his whole face was in comparison to the guy on the left. That is a fake image. It is phony. It is probably a composite image of "Harvey" and "Lee" but with a lot of doctoring to boot. It's just altogether fake.

It's a funny thing; Backes claims that the Dallas Police were so CORRUPT, criminally corrupt, as to frame Oswald for taking bus and cab rides that he didn't take. And, when I asked him how they expected to get away with it when Oswald had a mouth and was perfectly capable of saying and telling what he actually did instead- which he would have had no trouble establishing convincingly- Backes said that Dallas Police were unconcerned about that because they knew Oswald would be killed soon- and before he could speak to a lawyer. Oh really? They knew that the afternoon of November 22, did they? How do you figure, Backes? Tell us what you know. So, you think Fritz and Simms and Boyd, who planted the phony bus transfer ticket on Oswald that very afternoon, knew all along that he was going to be killed soon? How?But, for a moment, let's just take Backes at his word. We'll say that the Dallas Police knew, all long, that Oswald was a gonner; that he was a dead man walking. Well, in that case, how can you defend the Dallas Police for their actions on November 24 when Oswald was killed?For instance, I have pointed out that the Dallas Police issued all these alerts and alarms on the radio that they were receiving countless death threats against Oswald. So why then, when they brought Oswald out to where he was exposed to the public, did Officer Leavelle and Graves not look around to see if they could spot an attacker? Why did they look straight ahead like a work-horse with blinders? How is it that neither of them, neither Leavelle nor Graves, began to react in any way to "Ruby" until AFTER the shot went off? Doesn't it seem like an awake, aware, attentive, focused officer would have honed in on Ruby before he fired? Leavelle said he did, but Leavelle lied. The video shows that he did not.In fact, you only have to look at the Beers photo, which is the second most famous image of the Oswald shooting.

I'm saying that this is bull shit, that Leavelle and Graves had sight and hearing and vibration sense and the ability to turn their heads if they wanted to. It's crap for them, and it's crap for Oswald. Earlier, Oswald turned his head to look at Ruby, so why not now? Here's another view:

How could Ruby get that far without any reaction from Leavelle, Graves, and Oswald? Even though they were looking straight ahead, they still had their peripheral vision. And peripheral vision, though very blurry, is actually very sensitive to MOVEMENT, and "Ruby" was definitely moving. I'm saying that these guys were making a concerted effort NOT to see "Ruby."Backes will take issue with all this, but he's the one who claims that the Dallas Police, including the detectives who were responsible for protecting Oswald, had their sights on killing him all along and from the very beginning, and that's what gave them the confidence to go ahead with a phony bus and cab ride scheme. Remember that the bus transfer ticket was entered into evidence at 4:00 PM on Friday afternoon, and it was shown to reporters. Do you understand, Backes, that there was no taking it back after that? That if something, anything surfaced proving that Oswald did something else that they would have been fucking cooked? And, if you think they derived the security and confidence to do it from knowing that Oswald would soon be killed, then why don't you apply that to Oswald's killing? The problem is that Joseph Backes is a very stupid man, and the tiny speck of his brain that came up with the idea for the phony bus and cab rides for Oswald doesn't talk to the tiny speck of his brain that wants to defend the Dallas Police for what they did on November 24. It's like he changes hats. He goes from being a Dallas Police accuser to a Dallas Police defender depending on which hat he's wearing. And he forgets all about the other. Idiot. Let's see you talk your way out of this, Backes. $20 says it's going to be a doozey.

We all know about his pro-Castro agitation. So, what was his anti-Castro agitation? Oswald got arrested for his pro-Castro-agitation, and he spent a night in jail. Backes claims that Oswald gave up all kinds of intelligence information to John Quigley, the FBI agent and lawyer who went to see him, but Quigley denied this in his Warren Commission testimony.

Mr. QUIGLEY. When I began asking him specific details with respect to his activities in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans as to where meetings were held, who was involved, what occurred, he was reticent to furnish information, reluctant and actually as far as I was concerned, was completely evasive on them.

Mr. STERN. Is there any possibility that he was trying to give the New Orleans police the idea that he was working for or with the FBI?
Mr. QUIGLEY. Not to my knowledge, sir; no.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, as I stated before, when--I accepted basic information that he furnished to me regarding background, about what occurred at the time of his arrest. Then when I began questioning him as to who A. J. Hidell was, who the members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee were in New Orleans, where they held their meetings, what literature he read, which he claimed he had been receiving from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, he was noncommittal or wouldn't discuss it.
At one point of the interview he told me that he had held one of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee meetings at his home. I asked him, "Well, how did you get in touch with the other people?" "Well, I don't care to discuss that." "Who were the persons at the meeting?" "I don't know." "Did you know any names at all?" "Yes. They were introduced to me by first names Only." "What were their first names?" "I cannot remember." So it was apparent to me that he was not certainly going to furnish anything that he had made his statement, why I did not know. But when I pressed him for details he declined to furnish anything.

"When I pressed him for details, he declined to furnish anything.""When I pressed him for details, he declined to furnish anything.""When I pressed him for details, he declined to furnish anything."How does that mesh with, "he proceeds to tell the FBI everything he knows about pro-Castro people and anti-Castro people."Joseph Backes is a disinformationist. He just makes things up, such as that the Loveladys furnished the "wedding photo" of Young Lovelady to the HSCA. There isn't a speck of evidence for that. Backes just pulled it from his ass and plopped it down. There isn't any evidence for it whatsoever. Entirely and completely, Backes just made it up. Why did he do it? You see, Backes is like a child. If he wants something to be true, he just says it is. Backes would very much like it if the Loveladys provided the photo to the HSCA because if so, then it would imply that the photo was unavailable in 1963. So, to get there, he just made up the idea that the Loveladys provided the photo in 1976. It's the kind of lie that if he said it under oath, he could be prosecuted for perjury. And, Backes apparently did the same thing concerning what Oswald told Agent Quigley in New Orleans, none of which can be construed as "intelligence" or the work of an "informant" which Quigley denied Oswald was. Could Quigley have been lying? It's possible. And I doubt anyone has accused the FBI of more wrongdoing than I have. I'm the one who pointed out that the FBI doctored their photo of him from 2/29/64, giving him more hair coverage than he actually had. The image on the left below shows his true hairline at the time.

But, Backes said that Oswald told the FBI agent "everything he knew" whereas the FBI agent said that Oswald told him nothing. But, the worst thing was Backes claiming that Oswald "posed" as an anti-Castro agitator, which implies that he did something publicly to agitate against Castro. That would be VERY big if it were true. That would be HUGE if it were true. So, what was Backes referring to?Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was just a lie. Backes has no conscience about lying. And he wasn't just lying to me. He was lying to everyone who reads his blog- which means he was also lying to Bud Peters, Pink O'Blazney, and Klip Klop.We have an obligation to be truthful. We have an obligation to distinguish between known facts and pure speculation. which John Armstrong always does, and so do I. It amounts to showing respect for the truth and respect for the case. And before you rail about that, Backes, provide the evidence that Oswald posed as an anti-Castro agitator during the summer of 1963.

I just heard from a friend who said that she likes to apply wood oil to her wood furniture twice a year. So, you think that because cooking oil spilled on the floor, they needed to cover up the floor with plywood? That makes sense to you, does it? Somebody tells you that and you believe it, do you? The floor doesn't even look oily.

The sixth floor was teeming with police and investigators and even some reporters, right? Not one person reported seeing any oil. Not one person said that the floor was slippery from oil. You know what I think? I think it's a lot of bollocks. That's what I think. Not the bus ride. Not the cab ride. They were real. The explanation for why they were putting plywood down on that floor; that was bollocks.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Here is a good, clean shot of "Ruby" after he shot Oswald. There are some things I shall point out about it, but first, look at it:

First, notice that Will Fritz in the white hat next to the car, hasn't turned around yet. The blast of Colt Cobra, which is a loud revolver, has gone off in an enclosed space, causing Oswald to groan is agony, more than once, and then for him to collapse to the ground, and for mayhem to erupt, yet, Fritz hasn't turned around. And not only hasn't he turned around, but he hasn't reacted at all. We're talking noise, commotion, vibration. He may have even felt the God-damn wind from it, but no reaction? Does he look the least bit startled to you? When I go shooting my Smith and Wesson 38, it's loud, and I always wear earmuffs. But, imagine how much more startling the sound would be if you weren't expecting it. Doesn't it seem like Fritz should have at least looked startled by this point? Isn't a person's reaction to a loud blast instantaneous? How long did it take the sound to reach his ears? Next, I want you to notice "Ruby's" location. He's pretty far away from the cops. Pretty soon, he's going to be surrounded by them, and I mean surrounded by them to the extent that we can't see him at all. He is going to disappear amidst them.

But, do they go to him, or does he go to them? He goes to them. It's not as though he stands still and they get behind him. You see where the car is, and the cops never get near it. What happens is that "Ruby" goes to the cops. He dives towards them. Now, why would he do that if he was supposedly resisting and fighting them? And what would be the point of fighting them anyway? Obviously, he wasn't going to escape or prevail. The most hardened criminal in the world would give up at this point. He might even say something like: "I give up." Because: what's the point of getting beaten up? If you're going to be caught anyway, you might as well go peacefully and save yourself the bruising. And if he did that- said or signaled that he wasn't going to fight them- surely they would have sought to cuff him immediately, which would have ended the scuffle once and for all. But nothing like that happened. Instead, he dives into the cauldron; they surround him in an attempt to cover him up, with one guy actually putting something over his head after his hat came off, and even though at that point he wasn't fighting them at all, they still wrestled him into the building rather than stop and cuff him. What I am saying is that they were working together. "Ruby" and the cops were working together. They had a common goal, and that was to scurry him into the building and out of sight as quickly as possible and without exposing his face to the camera. That's what it looks like they were doing. That is what they were doing. And they did that because he wasn't Jack Ruby.

This is classic. OIC Chairman Larry Rivera has made another gif, and this time, he has depicted Lovelady as accurately and authentically as possible. This is how he was dressed on 11/22/63, and this is where he was located during the shooting.

And here it is as a still:

That is it. That is how it was. And Lovelady certainly knew that it is how it was. It finally dawned on him that they weren't kidding; that they wanted him to assume the mantle of Doorway Man, whether he liked it or not, and he had better do it. Notice that Larry also installed Buell Frazier into the photo where he believes he was. In order to explain why he wasn't seen in the Altgens doorway, Frazier lied and said that he was standing way back in the shadows. He was not. He was down on the steps, which complies with his first telling, that he was one step down from the top landing, just east of the median handrail.Lovelady really did wear the short-sleeved. vertically-striped shirt that he posed in for the FBI. At some point, they must have told him to wear the clothes he had worn that day. And it makes sense that they would because they were, supposedly, recreating his look as Doorway Man. Of course, he was not Doorway Man; Oswald was Doorway Man.

This is unbelievable! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black:"A new U.S. intelligence report says the Russian government is conducting a wide-ranging and “opportunistic” campaign to expand its political influence in Europe by deploying Internet “trolls and other cyber actors” to challenge pro-Western journalists and spread pro-Kremlin messages in social media forums."

"The use of “information warfare” techniques to pursue political goals has now been incorporated into official Russian military doctrine. The goal is not the annihilation of the country’s enemies, but to “weaken them from within” by “keeping everybody off balance” and “sowing doubt” about their political leaders and institutions."

"Russia’s use of trolls on social media would appear to fit that pattern. A report in the Guardian last year identified a St. Petersburg office building where “hundreds of paid bloggers work around the clock” to flood Internet sites and Western social media forums with posts praising Russian President Vladimir Putin and denouncing the “depravity and injustice” of the West."

Here, they've got trolls like bpete, who many believe is Bud Peters, Lance Uppercut, Steve Haydon, etc. manning the forums to denounce and make trouble for Oswald defenders/JFK truthers, and they've got the nerve of accusing Putin of doing it?

I don't know if Putin is doing it or not, but they are definitely doing it. They are working the JFK coverup as hard today as they ever have in the past- and maybe harder.

They have killed over it, and I don't doubt for one second that they could kill again. And they have committed numerous other crimes, including cyber crimes and physical crimes. This is a laughing stock that they would accuse Putin of doing the very thing they are doing. It reminds me of when Allen Dulles gave a speech warming about the Soviet Union's ominous mind control program, at which time the CIA's mind control program, under Dulles, was 10X bigger.

I have been focused lately on the true nature of the TSBD business and the fact that the book-distributing was largely a front for other clandestine activities. What I can guarantee you is that the rate at which they were shipping books, which is easy enough to surmise, could not possibly have supported that huge enterprise consisting of 75 employees. That is a lot of salaries. How many books would you have to sell? We have no references at all to whole boxes of books being sold and shipped, and that's strange considering that their customers were supposedly schools. If these were "readers" for classrooms, wouldn't the schools have to order enough for all the students in the class? How many students are there in a typical elementary school class? And a school could easily have more than one class using the same reader. If the "order-fillers" were retrieving whole boxes of books, they would have needed a cart or wagon. There is no reference or evidence of them having such things there. We are told that the "order-fillers" had clipboards. That's it.Then, they had just one wrapper, who called himself a "mailer": Troy West. So, under normal conditions, he could handle all the outflow from all the "order-fillers"? That's the story. Think of it like a funnel. He was the neck of the funnel. And yet, he could keep up? Then, they could not have been moving too many books. And he spoke of wrapping the orders in brown paper and tying them with string using a tying machine. They are not even designed for big boxes.

It was William Weston who first wrote about the TSBD being a CIA front company, in which school book distribution was used as the visible face for a secret, clandestine operation that involved espionage, infiltration, gun-running, and other things.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6017Think about the fact that they had all these "order-fillers" running all over the place looking for titles when there was apparently no system, no organization, no apparent way of knowing where anything was. It was just boxes plopped down, with no signs, no divisions, no categories, no nothing.

And considering how high the stacks were, how could the order-fillers even access the books on top? Where were the ladders? Look how non-descript and identical the boxes look. All of the printing on the boxes, except for the word BOOKS is illegible, at least to us. How long would it have taken an order-filler to find a book in that mess? And how would that have affected the rate of order-processing? How could the salaries of 75 employees, plus the other expenses of the business, be supported by the orders these motley "order-fillers" could fulfill at the rate they could fulfill them? It doesn't add up. Why is it that in all the images we have of boxes of books, we never once see a clear label, like this?

That's a label that appears on each of the boxes of my graphic novel, Vinland which is about Leif Eriksson, the Viking who discovered America. We don't see anything comparable to that on any of the boxes at the TSBD. So, how on Earth did they locate any books? Then get this: they were able to divert many of the "order-fillers" into becoming "floor-builders". But, what about all the orders they would have filled if they were doing their regular work of filling them? Did the orders just back up? Did they just keep those customers waiting? If you were running the business, wouldn't you let the order-fillers do their job and bring in a construction crew to rebuild the floors? Wouldn't it be better for the business to keep the orders going out?Finally, I received an interesting note from OIC Chairman Larry Rivera. And it concerns the fact that Oswald kept working at CIA-connected companies: Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall in Dallas, the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans, and then the TSBD in Dallas. Perhaps Oswald had a sense that there was more going on at this company than distributing Dick and Jane readers. They had a conference room on the 2nd floor. A conference room. What would you need a conference room for if you were distributing Dick and Jane readers? Could they have been conferring about other things in that conference room? Look at all the secretaries and white collar staff they had. How could they need all those white collar people to keep track of the relatively few books that the "order-fillers" were moving? Larry wonders whether Oswald had the sense that this business wasn't what it appeared to be, and that he was trying to find out. That is an interesting proposition. After all, he did have intelligence connections.

Backes doesn't know the difference between a colon and a semi-colon. Amazing. They teach you that in middle school.

And he’s so stupid and so bad at it he has a semi-colon after the word Look as if Look was a character’s name in this idiotic dialogue.

Look: it’s impossible to even imagine how the conversation could have gone if it involved telling Oswald about the plot.

And yes, Backes: Oswald knew nothing about the assassination. He told police and FBI that he knew nothing about it, and he told the whole world that at the Midnight Press Conference.

But, I never said he had no ties to US intelligence organizations. Here is what John Armstrong said about the New Orleans leafletting incident:

Look at the people involved with the Fair Play for Cuba
leafletting incident:
** CIA agent William Gaudet watched Oswald through his office in the
International Trade Mart
** The FBI photographed Oswald
** WDSU-TV filmed Oswald--cameraman Orvie Aucoin was an FBI informant
** Charles Hall Steel helped Oswald pass out leaflets--he was an FBI
informant
** Oswald was arrested with three Cubans
** Miguel Cruz-FBI informant T-2
** Carlos Bringuier-FBI informant for Warren DeBreuys
** Celso Hernandes who was arrested with Lee Oswald on Breakwater
Street in New Orleans by Officer Charles Noto in 1961
** When Oswald was taken to jail he requested to speak with an FBI
agent. The agent was John Quigley who interviewed Oswald for 2
hours.

So yes, Oswald had intelligence connections, but what he did not have is knowledge of the JFK assassination.

But, what is the evidence that Oswald posed as an anti-Castro agitator in the summer of '63?

Oswald posed as both an anti-Castro agitator and a pro-Castro agitator in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

I said: What is the evidence that Oswald ever posed as being anti-Castro? Everybody and his brother knows about his filmed pro-Castro leafletting, and we've all seen the film. Now, what is the corresponding evidence for his anti-Castro activity? I know that the leafletting was a CIA stunt, but when did Oswald ever pose as an anti-Castro agitator?

And I know that once arrested in New Orleans that he demanded to speak to an FBI agent and that Special Agent John Quigley went to see him. But, here is Quigley's testimony to the Warren Commission:

Mr. STERN. Is there any possibility that he was trying to give the New Orleans police the idea that he was working for or with the FBI?
Mr. QUIGLEY. Not to my knowledge, sir; no.
Mr. STERN. None of his conduct went in that direction?
Mr. QUIGLEY. No; he certainly, to my knowledge, never advised the New Orleans police of this. As a matter of fact, he, during the course of the interview with Lieutenant Martello, made a fiat statement that he would like to talk to an FBI agent, which is not an unusual situation. Frequently persons who are in custody of local authorities would like to talk to the FBI.

Well????????????? So, what the Hell are you talking about, Backes? Then, the Idiot Backes says that the CIA had "operational" interest in Oswald. Ah, duh? They fabricated a whole trip to Mexico City for him, so I dare say they had operational interest in him. They not only had operational interest in him, they operations on him.

And I know what is said by John Newman, who, by the way, sent me a friend request on Facebook. He says that the leafletting stunt was entirely a CIA operation, and that the alleged trip to Mexico City was entirely a CIA operation. About whether Oswald actually went to Mexico City or not, he is on the fence about. But, he is open to the possibility that Oswald never went there. He admits that there are no valid images of Oswald in Mexico City.

And, Oswald never made a call to a US Army Intelligence Agent from the Dallas Jail. He tried to make such a call. You would think that the call went through from what Backes wrote:

I have never denied that Oswald knew people in the intelligence community. What I have denied is that he had any foreknowledge of the JFK assassination. How smart do you have to be to realize that if Oswald didn't even know why people were gathering on the sidewalk the morning of November 22, that he didn't know JFK would be driving by and to his death? Oswald asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. I'll say it again: Oswald asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk.

Backes references the date of the ceremony in which JFK dutifully pinned a medal on Dulles for his national service as the date of his firing. The fact is that the decision to fire Dulles was made in April.

Within 72 hours all the invading troops had been killed, wounded or had surrendered. Richard Bissell had a meeting with John F. Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs operation. Kennedy admitted it was his fault that the operation had been a disaster and added, "In a parliamentary government, I'd have to resign. But in this government I can't, so you and Allen (Dulles) have to go."

So, the word was out within 72 hours that Dulles was getting his walking papers. David Talbot (for whom Backes isn't fit to scrape the mold from his shower) pegs April 1961 as the launch date of the assassination plot, and I agree with him.

Oswald had no knowledge of the plot to kill JFK. Jim Garrison said he had no knowledge of it, that he knew nothing about it. Oswald, himself, told the police and the world that he knew nothing about it.

And what is Backes implying by this?

For Cinque if Oswald knew anything about the planned assassination of JFK then that means the plotters themselves would be the ones telling Oswald

Who else, Backes? How else would Oswald know? What are you suggesting? That Oswald figured it out without being told? In that case, why didn't he try to stop it? In that case, he is guilty. If he just shrugged his shoulders knowing that JFK was going to be killed on November 22 and did nothing to stop it, then he might as well have pulled the trigger. It amounts to the same thing.

So, whether he was told by the those doing it or by anyone else who knew (and there isn't much difference between the two because if you knew about it, you were part of it) is immaterial and irrelevant because it simply didn't happen. Oswald didn't know. He did not know that John F. Kennedy was going to be blown away on November 22, 1963. Oswald never sent a telex about it. Oswald did not say it in the note he scratched to Hosty. There is no evidence that Oswald tried to inform anybody about the JFK assassination or that he knew it was going to happen.

Oswald had intelligence connections. That doesn't mean his intelligence connections told him anything about the JFK assassination. In fact, his intelligence connections may have tried to distract him with other things. OIC Chairman Larry Rivera thinks his intelligence connections may have told him about the concern about the gunrunning at the TSBD that was behind the facade of a book distributing business in which they were supposedly supporting the big enterprise through the sale of a few individual books, and the sales were apparently so few that they could afford to divert many of their "order-fillers" to floor-building for days at a time on end without causing any backlog. But, nobody but nobody tapped Oswald on the shoulder and said, "Guess what, Lee: We're killing Kennedy on the 22nd."

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

This is to those who think that Oswald had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination, that the plotters told him about it, even included him in it, operationally. My message to you is; you're not thinking straight. It would have made no sense, whatsoever, for the plotters to do that. It would have been insane for them to do it. Think about how it went down. It started with the decision to kill Kennedy. Just that. Nothing more. That had to be decided, abstractly. And it was decided.OK, so they decided they were going to kill Kennedy. But then, of course, they didn't want to get the chair for it themselves. So, that meant they had to find someone else to blame. So, they decided to blame it on one lone nut. Just one guy who did it all by himself and told no one. Not a soul. Not even his own wife. It's easy enough to understand why they were led to do that: because it's clean. If the assassination involved as few as two people, it would have been geometrically more complicated than having it be just one lone guy. What they wanted was a story that was so tight, so limited, so contained within very small paradigm, that it could be wrapped up almost immediately. They wanted to be able to cross every t and dot every i and put the whole damn thing to bed- very fast. And that was the advantage of making it one lone solitary guy, who did it alone, without so much as hinting to anyone else what he was going to do. So, they made that decision- to blame it all on one guy. And then, they went looking for the guy. And someone must have suggested Oswald. That may have happened while Oswald was still in Russia, and if not, then surely it happened immediately after Oswald returned from Russia. I think of the real practical, concrete starting point of the assassination as being April 1963 when JFK fired Allen Dulles as CIA Chief. It was probably very soon after that, if not immediately after that, that the plan got launched. There was outrage in the whole intelligence community that JFK had copped out of invading Cuba in support of the Bay of Pigs operation. Instead, he let it fail, and that was his death sentence. So, that was April 1961, and it was 14 months later that Oswald returned from Russia. And that's why I say that the decision to go with Oswald as patsy may have been made while he was still in Russia. But, if not, it was made at the time of his return to the U.S. in June 1962. And the reason we can be confident about that is because as soon as he returned, right away, the Dallas "White Russian" community started coddling him and his wife (think of the coddling of Mia Farrow's character by the Satanists in Rosemary's Baby). And likewise, CIA operative George DeMohrenschild was assigned to befriend him and keep him on a short leash and a close watch. Why would they do all that unless they had big plans for Oswald? So, they decided to kill Kennedy. Then they decided that they were going to blame it all on one lone nut. And then they decided that Lee Harvey Oswald would be that lone nut. So, that's how the plot developed, and it developed in that order, in that sequence. So, that's where they were: they had decided to kill Kennedy, and they had decided that Oswald would be their patsy. Now, what came next? Were they were going to tell Oswald about the plot? Why would they do that? They didn't need him for anything. They certainly didn't need him to be a shooter. They had expert assassins for that. Who had Oswald ever killed in his life? Nobody. He never even fought in a war. He was a radar guy; not a combat soldier. Look: let's get something perfectly straight here: Oswald did the MINIMAL amount of shooting required by the Marines, and in his last shooting test which was in the Spring of 1959, he scored 91. The lowest passing score was 90. So, he practically failed his last test. And let's remember that it didn't begin to compare to the difficulty and strenuousness of shooting a real person dead under the 6th floor conditions. Oswald had zero experience at that. And then after that, the ONLY shooting he did was to go rabbit-hunting a couple of times with his Russian buddies, in which they said he stunk at it. Plus, they were using shotguns. Yet, they still said he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and someone had to shoot a rabbit for him. The idea that the conspirators wanted Oswald to shoot is absolutely and positively INSANE. They would have had to be out of their fucking minds. So, what was left for him to do to make it necessary to tell him about the assassination plot? Nothing! Did he have to open a door? No! Somebody else could do that. Did he have to prep the rifle? No! Somebody else could do that. Did he have to be a lookout? No! Somebody else could do that. They didn't need him for anything-except to be the patsy. That's it. Just to take the blame for it; nothing else. So, they had no reason to tell him. And they had numerous reasons not to tell him. For example, what reason did they have to think that Oswald would have cottoned to the very idea of killing Kennedy? Think about it from your own perspective. You are a normal person; right? So imagine that some people come to you and tell you that they are going to kill the President of the United States, and they want you to help them. What are you going to do? You're going to go tell the Police, aren't you? So, Oswald, not having anything against Kennedy, and not having any inclinations whatsoever towards murder, would have reacted the same way as you. And they would have anticipated that. But, what about Oswald being an intelligence agent, etc.? Look: there is no evidence at all that the Oswald of fame was ever involved in any kind of violent action. It's complicated because there was another Oswald, referred to as "Lee" in John Armstrong's lexicon. And, undoubtedly, some of the Oswald sightings involved him. And I don't doubt that he was capable of violence and committed violence. But, the Oswald of fame had been living in Russia for three years, where he had no violent activity of any kind. As I said, he couldn't even kill a rabbit. And then he gets back here with his wife and daughter, and he starts struggling to survive, working at low-paying, menial jobs. And the idea that he was in any way prepared, qualified, or even inclined to participate in a murder plot- against anybody- is ridiculous. It's absurd. They had absolutely nothing to gain by including him in it or telling him about it. They would have realized that if they told Oswald what was going to happen on November 22, 1963, that he may have panicked; he may have gone to the police; he may have gone to other law enforcement; or, he may have just grabbed his family and run away. Gotten on a bus at the last minute and split. Look what Richard Case Nagell did just from having foreknowledge of the JFK assassination. And, he wasn't even the patsy. What did they need from Oswald? They needed him to not say anything to anybody and to just show up on November 22. I'll say it again: They needed him to not say anything to anybody and to just show up on November 22. And the best way to insure that outcome was to not tell him anything. Don't give him anything to freak out about. Don't give him anything to even ponder. Just play him. Just move him around like a marionette. Oswald was just the patsy; nothing more. He wasn't opening any doors. He wasn't a lookout. He certainly wasn't a designated shooter. He couldn't shoot. He was just the patsy. Look: it's impossible to even imagine how the conversation could have gone if it involved telling Oswald about the plot. Dulles: We're all set, Mr. Vice President. The operation will occur on November 22. The designated culprit, Lee Harvey Oswald, works in the building; he will be there; and he will be easily identified as the gunman, the lone gunman, after it happens.LBJ: I see. Very good. And I presume he knows nothing about this. Are you sure he doesn't? Dulles: Well, no. Actually, he knows all about it. He knows everything about the operation- except the part about him bearing the sole blame. LBJ: What? How did he find out?Dulles: Well, actually, we told him.LBJ? What? Why? Are you out of your mind? What did you tell him for?Dulles: Well, you see, it's like this, Mr. Vice President; it's complicated. There was this parallel operation down in New Orleans that involved trying to develop a poison that would give Castro cancer. And Oswald got involved in that operation, operationally, and that operation overlapped with this operation. So, before we knew it, he was involved in both.LBJ: Holy Mother of God! Are you shitting me? It wasn't enough that he just be set up as the fall guy in this operation? You had to use him in another operation? Dulles: Hey, it wasn't even my operation. Remember, I'm not the CIA Chief any more.LBJ: What is wrong with the people who did this? What's going to happen now if Oswald gets arrested and starts singing like a canary, spewing everything he knows? Dulles: Oh, don't worry, we're planning to kill him that afternoon.LBJ: You're planning to kill him?Dulles: Well, not us, but we're setting it up so that the Dallas Police are likely to kill him.LBJ: Likely to? LIKELY TO??? Am I supposed to take confidence from that?I could keep going, but you get the idea. The idea of cutting Oswald in on the plot to kill Kennedy would have been stark raving mad. It would have been insane. And these people were not insane. They were evil, and they were fanatically driven, but they were not insane. Oswald was the patsy. They knew he could spend some time in custody. (And of course, he did.) Their goal was to make sure that he had little that he could tell authorities and nothing that would be really damaging- to them.Oswald told the world: "I don't know what this whole situation is about. Nobody has told me anything. I know I am accused of killing a policeman. I know nothing more than that."That's what he said. He said it directly to us. And, he wasn't lying. He didn't know anything.

This is to those who think that Oswald had knowledge of the JFK assassination plot before it happened, that the plotters told him about it, even included him in it. My message to you is; you're not thinking straight. It would have made no sense, whatsoever, for the plotters to do that. It would have been insane for them to do it. Think about how it went down. It started with the decision to kill Kennedy. Nothing more. That had to be decided, abstractly. And it was decided.OK, so they decided they were going to kill Kennedy. Of course, they didn't want to get the chair for it themselves. So, that meant they had to blame someone else. So, they decided to blame it on one lone nut. Just one guy who did it all by himself and told no one. Not a soul. Not even his own wife. It's easy enough to understand why they were led to do that: because it's clean. If the assassination involved as few as two people, it would have been geometrically more complicated than having it be just one lone guy. What they wanted was a story that was so tight, so limited, so contained within very small paradigm, that it could be wrapped up almost immediately. They wanted to be able to cross every t and dot every i and put the thing to bed- very fast. And that was the advantage of making it one lone solitary guy, who did it alone, without so much as hinting to anyone else what he was going to do. So, they made that decision- to blame it all on one guy. And then, they went looking for the guy. And someone must have suggested Oswald. That may have happened while Oswald was still in Russia, and if not, then surely it happened soon after Oswald returned from Russia. I think of the real practical, concrete starting point as being April 1963 when JFK fired Allen Dulles. It was probably very soon after that, if not immediately after that, that the plan got launched. There was outrage in the intelligence community that JFK had copped out of invading Cuba to support the Bay of Pigs operation. Instead, he let it fail, and it was his death sentence. So, that was April 1961, and it was 14 months later that Oswald returned from Russia. And that's why I say that the decision to go with Oswald as patsy may have been made while he was still in Minsk. But, if not, it was made in conjunction with his return in June 1962. And the reason we can be confident about that is because as soon as he returned, right away the Dallas "White Russian" community started coddling him and his wife (think of the coddling of Mia Farrow's character by the Satanists in Rosemary's Baby). And likewise, CIA operative George DeMohrenschild was assigned to befriend him and keep him on a short leash. Why would they do that unless they had big plans for Oswald? So, they decided to kill Kennedy. Then they decided that they were going to blame it all on a lone nut. And then they decided that Lee Harvey Oswald would be that lone nut. So, that's how the plot developed, and it developed in that order, in that sequence. So, that's where they were: they had decided to kill Kennedy, and they had decided that Oswald would be their patsy. Now, what came next? Were they were going to tell Oswald about the plot? Why would they do that? They didn't need him for anything. They certainly didn't need him to be a shooter. They had expert assassins for that. Who had Oswald ever killed in his life? Nobody. He never even fought in a war. He was a radar guy; not a warrior. Look: let's get something perfectly straight here: Oswald did the MINIMAL amount of shooting required by the Marines, and in his last shooting test which was in the Spring of 1959, he scored 91. The lowest passing score was 90. So, he practically failed. And let's remember that it didn't even compare to the difficulty and strenuousness of shooting a real person dead under the 6th floor conditions. Oswald had zero experience at that. And then after that, the ONLY shooting he did that we know of was to go rabbit hunting a couple of times with his Russian buddies, in which they said he stunk at it. Plus, they were using shotguns. Yet, they still said he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and someone had to shoot a rabbit for him. The idea that the conspirators wanted Oswald to shoot is absolutely INSANE. You would have to be completely out of your mind to think such a thing.So, what was left for him to do to make it necessary to tell him about the assassination plot? Nothing! Did he have to open a door? No! Somebody else could have done that. Did he have to prep the rifle? No! Somebody else could have done that. Did he have to be a lookout? No! Somebody else could have done that. They didn't need him for anything relating to the assassination except to be the patsy. Just to take the blame for it; nothing else. So, they had no reason to tell him. And they had numerous reasons not to tell him. For example, what reason did they have to think that Oswald would have cottoned to the idea of killing Kennedy? Think about it from your own perspective. You are a normal person; right? So imagine that some people come to you and tell you that they are going to kill the President of the United States, and they want you to help them. What are you going to do? You're going to go tell the Police, aren't you? So, Oswald, not having anything against Kennedy, and not having any inclinations whatsoever towards murder, would have reacted the same way as you. And they would have anticipated that. But, what about Oswald being an intelligence agent, etc.? Look: there is no evidence at all that the Oswald of fame was ever involved in any kind of violent action. It's complicated because there was another Oswald, referred to as "Lee" in John Armstrong's lexicon. And, undoubtedly, some of the Oswald sightings involved him. And I don't doubt that he was capable of violence. But, the Oswald of fame had been living in Russia for three years, where he had no violent episodes of any kind. As I said, he couldn't even kill a rabbit. And then he gets back here with his wife and daughter, and he starts struggling to survive, working at low-paying, menial jobs. And the idea that he was in any way prepared, qualified, or even inclined to participate in a murder plot is ridiculous. They had absolutely nothing to gain by including him in it or telling him about it. They would have realized that if they told Oswald what was going to happen on November 22, 1963, that he may have panicked; he may have gone to the police; he may have gone to other law enforcement; or, he may have grabbed his family and ran. Look what Richard Case Nagell did from having foreknowledge of the assassination. And, he wasn't even the patsy. What did they need from Oswald? They needed him to not say anything to anybody and to just show up on November 22. I'll say it again: They needed him to not say anything to anybody and to just show up on November 22. And the best way to insure that was to not tell him anything. Don't give him anything to freak out about. Don't give him anything to even ponder. Just play him. Just move him around like a marionette. Oswald was just the patsy; nothing more. He wasn't opening any doors. He wasn't a lookout. He was certainly never designated to be a shooter. He was just the patsy. Look: it's impossible to even imagine how the conversation could have gone if it involved telling Oswald. Dulles: We're all set, Mr. Vice President. The operation will occur on November 22. The designated culprit, Lee Harvey Oswald, works in the building; he will be there; and he will be easily identified as the gunman, the lone gunman, after it happens.LBJ: I see. And I presume he knows nothing about this. Are you sure he doesn't? Dulles: Well, no. Actually, he knows all about it. He knows everything about the operation except the part about him getting the sole blame. LBJ: What? How did he find out?Dulles: Well, actually, we told him.LBJ? What? Why? Are you out of your mind? What did you need him to know for?Dulles: Well, you see, Mr. Vice President, it's complicated. There was this parallel operation down in New Orleans that involved trying to develop a poison that would give Castro cancer. And Oswald got involved in that, operationally, and that operation overlapped with this operation. So, before we knew it, he was involved in both.LBJ: Are you shitting me? It wasn't enough that he just be set up as the fall guy in this operation? You had to use him in another operation? Dulles: Hey, it wasn't even my operation. Remember, I'm not the CIA Chief any more.LBJ: What is wrong with the people who did this? What's going to happen now if Oswald getd arrested and starts singing like a canary everything he knows? Dulles: Oh, don't worry, we're planning to kill him that afternoon.LBJ: You're planning to kill him?Dulles: Well, not us, but we're setting it up so that the Dallas Police are likely to kill him.LBJ: Likely to? Am I supposed to take confidence from that?I could keep going, but you get the idea. The idea of cutting Oswald in on the plot to kill Kennedy would have been insane. And these people were not insane. They were evil, and they were fanatically driven, but they were not insane. Oswald was the patsy. They knew he could spend some time in custody. (And of course, he did.) Their goal was to make sure that he had little that he could tell and nothing that would be really damaging- to them.Oswald told the world: "I don't know what this whole situation is about. Nobody has told me anything. I know I am accused of killing a policeman. I know nothing more than that."That's what he said- to us. And, he wasn't lying.